Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 56 - Statistics

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Hood. I hope that you had the benefit of a good week. It is good to see you back in the Chair. I am sure that the Committee appreciates the fact that you have had to drag yourself away from another pressing Committee meeting, part of which I also had the honour to attend.
 Before the break for questions, lunch and the prime ministerial statement, I was questioning the Minister, but obviously he has not had the opportunity to reply. With reference to clause 56(4), will the Minister tell me the legal basis for the current crime statistics produced by the British Transport police? I hope that the Government will do better on the provisions in this Bill than the way in which the current provisions operate. 
 Subsection (4) states: 
''Where the Secretary of State receives information under this section he shall lay it or a summary of it before Parliament.''
 Under normal circumstances I would understand that to mean that any hon. Member who wished to have access to the statistical information under the existing provisions or the proposed new provisions would present him or herself to the Vote Office or to the Library and expect to have easy access to a copy. I was therefore concerned—I am sure that the Minister will be alarmed to hear this—on presenting myself to the Vote Office at 11.33 this morning, to be told that the statistics were not available there, and that the Department could not get them to me by 2.30 pm today. That was three hours' notice, which I would have thought was adequate, if the document was as widely available as we are told. 
 I then went to the Library at 11.40 am—obviously I moved quite quickly between the Vote Office and the Library—and was told that copies were available in the statistical section of the Library. As hon. Members will know, the statistical section of the Library is not part of the Members' Library, but is situated some three or four blocks away in Derby gate, very close to the Norman Shaw North building in which my office is located. 
 I therefore record my immense gratitude to the House of Commons Library for, in the short time available, furnishing me with the relevant information. I am not allowed to take the document out of the Library, but I considered the Committee Room to be 
 an extension of the Library. Moreover, the Library knows where the document is and who has it, and I have promised to return it by 5 pm. 
 My point, however, is serious—it relates to my question on the current legal basis of the statistical evidence to which the Minister referred this morning. The document I have is the ''British Transport Police Statistical Bulletin 2001/02''—the most recent edition available—and I would like to know why it is not made more widely available. Will the Minister confirm that the statistics referred to in subsection (4) will be made more widely available than at present? 
 This may strike a chord with you, Mr. Hood, because the statistics come with a health warning. On page 3 of the bulletin it states: 
''Crime statistics should be treated with caution. Dramatic fluctuations''—
 it is a bit like the stock market— 
''up or down can be misleading, and, if misused, statistics can contribute to the fear of crime. Hundreds of millions of passenger journeys are made safely each year, and the statistics should be viewed in that context.''
 That is the health warning with which the statistics come. 
 We had a debate this morning about whether the statistics and reports furnish the statistics take in the whole area covered by the British Transport police or are broken down into regions. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was helpful in trying to elicit further guidance from the Minister on that. It may help the Committee to point out that page 4 of the most recent edition of the helpful and illuminating statistics, which we must consider in the context of the health warning to which I referred, breaks down the network into area maps. Will the Minister explain at what stage the statistics will be extrapolated from the reports in clauses 53 and 54? Will he answer the question I asked this morning? At what stage will they be translated in that reporting period into the statistics I have mentioned? 
 In our debates on clauses 53 and 54, I tried to tease out issues of morale and training. I am delighted to say that personnel statistics are also given on pages 5 and 6, notably on the numbers of constables and different rankings. I hope that the Minister will confirm that future reports will include such statistics. Regrettably, there are no female chief constables in the British Transport police, but I am sure that that will be rectified in the fullness of time. I am delighted to note that we in North Yorkshire now have the services of a female chief constable, and I am sure that the Committee would want to see that emulated in other police forces and the British Transport police. That reference to the statistics is important. 
 When we touched on the best value indicators, we were told that the British Transport police would have to have regard to best value but could not be treated as a best value authority. As I mentioned at the time, that will leave the British Transport police and its authority in a quandary. Page 9 includes statistics from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary of best value performance indicators for the reporting period for 2001–02 for England and Wales, and I am delighted to 
 see that the most recent figures show that 98.1 per cent. of police constables are in operational posts. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such statistics will continue to be monitored for the reason that I gave earlier. One purpose of such statistics should be to check that the vast majority of the resources allocated to the British Transport police goes on operational policing. It should not go to other matters, as a rather large proportion of a force's operational budget often goes on paying for retirement costs, which is regrettable. North Yorkshire is particularly vulnerable to that as we have two waves to come of senior police officers approaching retirement age, so we will have two peaks and troughs in the percentage figure before 2012. 
 Clause 56 is vague, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the statistics will continue to give an idea of the number of complaints per 1,000 officers and the percentage of complaints that are substantiated. The document gives greater detail later, and I am glad to say that less than 5 per cent. of complaints were substantiated. 
 This morning—I repeat this is for your benefit, Mr. Hood, as you were not here—I said that there was a serious omission that I hoped the Minister would explain. The serious omission is a paragraph (d) in subsection (2) relating to victims of crime. I note with interest and satisfaction that the table on page 9, compiled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, says that the percentage of victims satisfied with the police's initial response to the report of violent crime is as high as 80 per cent. That is a great credit to the British Transport police. I do not know how it compares with local police forces. I did not think to bring the performance document issued to us last week, which is among my other papers. 
 The document also mentions figures that I have requested but which the Minister was reluctant—[Interruption.] I am sure that he is not reluctant at all. I will not again fall prey to the charge of putting words into the Minister's mouth. I am not sure whether I asked specifically about the ethnicity of offenders—[Interruption.]

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady did not ask that.

Anne McIntosh: No, but I do now. Will future statistics give us the ethnicity of victims? I have also asked whether the gender of offenders and victims might be profiled in the statistics. I find the document immensely helpful and I wonder whether it is available on the web. That could be some night-time reading on my laptop at the weekend. [Interruption.] Does it already happen, or is the Department minded to correlate the statistics garnered by the Home Office for the national police force and those garnered by the British Transport police? [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. Hood.
 It would be helpful to know whether the 10 per cent.—I am not sure what PACE is—

John Spellar: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister. The percentages of stop and searches under PACE leading to arrest are broadly similar for white and ethnic minority persons: 10.7 per cent. for whites and 11.7 per cent. for non-whites. Will those statistics be compared with those for other national police forces? We owe a great debt of gratitude to the British Transport police officers. I would like to see more transparency of their work in this regard and I should have thought that the statistics, even read with a health warning, could be powerful.
 Interestingly, when we had the discussion about the report and clauses 53 and 54 the Under-Secretary rattled through the top policing plan priorities. He did not dwell at any length on sexual offences, to which I referred in my remarks about the statistics, and the Bill does not include them. Interestingly, however, the latest statistical bulletin from the reporting period 2001–02 examines how many sexual offences were reported and investigated. Will there be another opportunity to re-examine each planning priority to determine whether there is a correlation between the number of offences committed and reported and the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service, whether national police forces' statistics reflect that and whether there are any conclusions to be drawn? 
 Why does not the clause state that the statistics will also relate to complaints against the police? I accept that the report does, but I want to know why the Bill does not. I would like some guidance to enable us to monitor that. 
 There are other crimes to which we have not alluded. I do not know if the Minister purposely left them out when we discussed clauses 53 and 54, but general public disorder offences on the London underground, on trains and in railway stations are of particular interest, as are offences relating to drugs. Will the Minister confirm that vandalism, as the hon. Member for Bath would call it, hooliganism and damage to cars parked at railway stations would fall within the remit of the British Transport police, as we see from the statistics for this reporting period? 
 Interestingly, the statistics go into great detail according to area, whereas the hon. Member for Bath suggested that the statistics would be collated nationally. I am delighted to see that they are broken down into England, Wales, Scotland and London Underground, and then broken down further, but Yorkshire and North Yorkshire are not mentioned in the summary of notifiable offences and crimes. Clearly, the levels are crime are lower because the Government, in their wisdom, have decided to give North Yorkshire police a standstill budget. We will be left £8.2 million short, so the Government may know something that we do not. I know where the north-east of England, the north-west of England and the midlands are, but I do not see where North 
 Yorkshire fits in. We do not want to be considered as part of the north-east for these purposes. 
 I briefly mentioned burglary, and I see that robbery and burglary account for a large number of offences. Will the Minister tell us whether the number of reported crimes of sexual assault, rape, robbery and burglary and the number of successful prosecutions for those crimes have increased or decreased not only in this reporting period, but over, for example, the past five years? 
 Fraud, in the form of ticket fraud and other fraud, is mentioned. Other fraud accounts for substantially larger amounts than ticket fraud. Forgery is very alarming. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is on a downward trend. 
 The Minister said that one priority for the railways policing plan, which will also be covered in the chief constable's report and the authority's report, is fatalities. I welcome the fact that the number of homicides in the relevant period was quite low. Nevertheless, there were five reported fatalities in the jurisdiction of the British Transport police in that reporting period, which is clearly five fatalities too many. 
 Many of us have experience of people trying to leap between railway carriages and from one train to another. We have experienced that in North Yorkshire with some senior public figures. One comes to mind, but I shall not go into that. I hope that that is not a common occurrence and that the Minister will assure me that that crime is not rising. Just to refresh his memory—

Don Foster: On that point—and perhaps just for a break—is the hon. Lady aware that we are told in subsection (2)(c), which relates to statistics, that we shall hear only about criminal proceedings? The practice of jumping between carriages is not dealt with under criminal proceedings; it is usually handled under byelaws. Does she share my view that we should perhaps look back at, for instance, the 1861 legislation, which would ensure that there was criminal legislation because of the serious danger that that practice can pose?

Anne McIntosh: I thank the hon. Gentleman. One does not wish for too many breaks this afternoon, particularly as another may be imminent. Nevertheless, he makes a serious point and I give him credit. I had not appreciated that the situation was as he describes. I presume that that is also the case in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will have had an opportunity to confirm that during the short lunch break that we were allowed today. I asked this morning about the extent to which offences in England and Wales are not treated as offences in Scotland. From memory—I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong—I think that trespass was not considered to be an offence in Scotland. It may have become an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which relates to hunting. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
 This innocent-looking little clause fits neatly between clauses 55 and 57, and sums up the policing 
 plan. I wish that I could commend that marvellous little document as bedtime reading, but the Library is loth to give out any of its three copies, for justifiable reasons. The document is a huge treasure trove of information, which we shall have the opportunity to explore in future years once the Bill is on the statute book. I hope that the Minister will respond to the serious matters that we have raised. The hon. Member for Bath started the debate, and I followed it through. 
 I am particularly aware of the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service was not in existence during the time that is under discussion. As I said, I should like to know how that has affected the levels of reported crimes, crimes committed and successfully prosecuted crimes. 
 This morning, I mentioned the concern, which I hope that the Minister will address, that a British Transport police constable attested in England and Wales would have jurisdiction in Scotland without the appropriate training or knowledge of Scottish law. I hope that he will confirm that that will not be the case. 
 The Royal National Institute of the Blind noted that clause 56 allows the Secretary of State 
''to supply information about matters relating to crime committed on . . . the railways.''
 It asked whether he would be able to use the power to require the production of statistics on the number of disabled people who are victims of crime. Why is there no subsection (2)(d) on victims? I hope that the Minister has enough time to respond to all the points that we have raised.

David Jamieson: It seems such a long time since we heard the hon. Lady's questions—and that applies just to her questions of today. I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hood, and hope that you had a refreshing break last week.
 Clause 56 enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable to provide statistical information about crime on the railways, including on offences committed, offenders, criminal proceedings and other information that the Secretary of State may direct. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to lay an abstract of that information before Parliament, and I shall say more about that later. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked question A, to which the answer is yes. He went on—

Don Foster: Surely the answer to question A is answer B.

David Jamieson: Mr. Hood, you were not here this morning, so let me explain that for the convenience and brevity of the Committee we had decided to truncate some answers. The clause is consistent with section 45 of the Police Act 1996, which is the answer to question A. Answer B is also yes. I hope that I have clarified the position.
 The hon. Member for Bath asked about the location of crimes. I have taken his point into account, but it would be within the gift of the Secretary of State to ask for such information if he wanted it. Most of the information would come through the annual report, of which we have a copy here in Committee, but, as I say, the Secretary of State 
 could ask for further information, including the location of crimes, if he desired it.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but might it not be necessary for the Secretary of State to make changes to the RIDDOR procedure? There is no point in asking for information unless it has been recorded in the first place. I assume that information about location will emerge through the usual discussions.

David Jamieson: The simple answer is that information is often available somewhere, but we have to decide whether it is worth the time and effort required to produce it. If it is important enough, a judgment will be made to acquire the information. The hon. Gentleman knows that it often takes considerable time and effort to produce parliamentary answers to hon. Members' questions.
 The hon. Gentleman also asked about recorded crime and offences committed, which will be in accordance with Home Office guidelines. What happens under the Bill will be similar to what happens under other Home Office legislation. He also asked about making statistics speedily known. I understand the thrust of his question, but most statistics will appear in the annual report. If the Secretary of State required information of the British Transport police under this clause—he would not always have to use the clause to require the information, as other clauses also apply—such information would have to be laid before Parliament with due expedition. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made some interesting points about the crime figures being accurate and consistent with each other. The figures will be produced in line with Home Office guidelines, but I understand the point about the importance of gathering good statistics each year to examine the trends in crime. That is important to my hon. Friend's constituents and other railways users. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked about the low level of detection and prosecution. That reflects the problems that the British Transport police and the industry face in targeting rail crime. Many incidents are reported only once the offender has left the railways. For example, vandalism is often discovered a long time after the event. In some situations, an hour can be a long time spent on trying to track down the person who committed the offence. Many offences are committed by juveniles, and prosecution is not always the most effective way to deal with them. The authorities cannot always proceed with prosecutions, and education that targets schools and parents may be more appropriate. The hon. Gentleman asked some important questions, and I hope that my response has been helpful. I might pick up on some of his other points in my later comments. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised some matters, and I should be able to get through them quickly. She asked about the victims of crime, but the statistical document is all 
 about the victims. Each statistic represents a person who has been offended against, although I take her point about recording the gender and ethnicity of victims. I dare say that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to require that information if he thought that it would help the future policing of the railways. 
 The hon. Lady asked why the Bill does not require that all information be provided. If we included every category on which information might be required, the Bill would be a thick and weighty document and, even then, there would be the risk of leaving something out. As the hon. Lady can see from the clause, the Secretary of State can ask to be provided with any relevant information that he or she requires. 
 At one point, the hon. Lady asked where her constituency of the Vale of York comes into it. My knowledge of geography is cursory, but I always thought that Yorkshire was somewhere in the north-eastern region.

Anne McIntosh: No it is not.

David Jamieson: Well, from the map at the front of the document, I can see that Hull and York are both in the north-eastern region. As I said, it is a national document, but it breaks down the statistics regionally.

Anne McIntosh: Even with the health warning on page 3, if the statistics are to mean anything, they should not equate a little village such as Cattal, which has a railway station and commuter line going through it, with what happens in Newcastle. The Government have built on their regional strategy for offices and defined regions, and Yorkshire and the Humber are not connected with the north-eastern region as we presently know it.
 I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) would like statistics from London and Uxbridge to be included with figures from East Anglia. I cannot imagine that the hon. Member for Bath is delighted to see that his constituency is included in a region that encompasses the whole of the south-west, including Cornwall and Devon, and a third of Wales. Let us be frank. If the statistics are to mean anything, the regions should reflect the regions used for other purposes.

David Jamieson: The regions have been created for good reason. It would not necessarily be appropriate for them to reflect regions used for other Government purposes. Those regions are well understood and relate to the railways. That is the important point. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath minds his constituency being associated with Devon and Cornwall. I saw him shake his head slightly when the hon. Lady mentioned that.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. Is it appropriate for the Minister to infer my thoughts on certain matters and even to suggest that my head was moving in any way?

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. Trying to get inside his head is rather challenging.

David Jamieson: Nor do I wish to get inside or outside the hon. Gentleman's head.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York is suggesting an enormous bureaucratic system that endlessly pares down statistics into smaller and smaller areas. As I said earlier, if statistics were needed because a small station was creating a problem, I am sure that they could be made available. However, to break them down station by station, town by town, or parish by parish would make the document meaningless, filled with information that was beyond comprehension.

John Randall: Has any consideration been given to giving statistics by rail lines, rather than regions? Would that be simpler?

David Jamieson: The statistics reflect the operations of the British Transport police and to some extent the operations of the railways. That is how they have been divided up. We have split them into geographical regions but if information is needed on a more detailed basis, it can be provided.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked for year-on-year statistics this morning. She probably has the document now and can analyse it. She mentioned sexual offences and rape. The number of rapes recorded in 2001–02 and the comparison with the previous year are shown on page 51. A trend can be seen. By comparing the various documents, trends can be analysed over different periods. 
 The statistics compiled by the British Transport police in England, Scotland and Wales reflect crimes reported to them by the victims or witnesses of crime. The British Transport police can also conduct their own survey of the perception of crime. That is compatible with the Home Office crime survey. Year-on-year statistical comparisons can be seen throughout the document. The sentencing offender profiles and detailed statistics are not necessarily matters for the British Transport police alone. However, along with other police forces, they can provide information for the Central Statistical Office as required. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked whether offences would be reported in full under subsection (4). Generally, that would be the case. That is the format in which that information would come. If the Secretary of State requires statistics under the clause, they would generally be provided in full. However, if they were very detailed, a summary could be made. If required, they could be reported to Parliament in full.

Don Foster: I would like to clarify the matter for the record. Subsection (4) states:
''Where the Secretary of State receives information under this section he shall lay it or a summary of it before Parliament.''
 I recognise the value of summaries in certain circumstances, but I sought an assurance that the chief constable should agree with that summary, so that there was no question of doubt about the selection of information put into it.

David Jamieson: I am sure that discussions would take place on the summary before it was drawn up. The chief constable might already have summarised the statistics, and that summary might be placed before Parliament. If parliamentarians then wished to drill down into further detail, I am sure that more detailed information could be made available.
 However, I imagine that in general—so that we do not receive a great number of parliamentary questions on the matter—we would provide the statistics to the House in the fullest form possible commensurate with popular reporting.
 The British Transport police produce annual figures after the end of the financial year, normally in the summer. Those figures are, as we know, national and regional, the regional figures being a subset of the national figures. 
 The hon. Lady asked how effective the CPS has been in its prosecutions since it was established. Although that is not relevant to the Bill, and I do not have the information to hand, details could no doubt be found on that if the hon. Lady wishes to press the issue. 
 There were a number of questions about laying information before Parliament and how that will be done. The hon. Lady also raised a number of points about accessing information, but the question of how quickly information can be retrieved from the Library is a matter not for my Department, but for the House authorities. If the hon. Lady was not satisfied, she should make representations through the appropriate channels. 
 I will, however, clear up the matter of laying information before Parliament, as that issue has been raised in several debates. A document can be laid before Parliament only when Parliament is sitting. Two copies of the document are taken by my Department to the Clerk in charge of the Vote Office in the Commons. The document is then made available to Members via the Journal Office in the Commons. The hon. Lady asked how we know what information is available. In the debate the week before last, the hon. Member for Bath said that MPs find out that a document has been made available to them through a notice that appears in the daily Votes and Proceedings. MPs must therefore keep an eye on that rather substantial list of items as it is published in order to know what has been laid before the House. 
 I hope that that has been a helpful response to the points made in the debate.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's summing up. However, I asked at the outset, and again this afternoon, what the legal basis was for the statistics in the current Bulletin to which he referred. I query whether it is a similar proceeding to a preceding Act of Parliament because the Bulletin states:
''The crime/offence figures are collated from the British Transport Police's computerised crime reporting system, 'PINS'.''
 That is not to be confused with pins and needles. It continues: 
''The recording of crime is not static and the figures represent a snapshot in time, i.e. the state of the system at 31 March 2001 and 2002.''
 Is the current legal basis for the PINS the Police Act 1996 or a previous Act of Parliament? Would the provisions transfer to the new statutory framework for the British Transport police? I hope that I did not mislead the Committee when I mentioned for clarification that, in 2000–01, there were five reported homicides out of the total number of offences for the 
 whole of England, including London. The Committee may be interested to know that British Transport police officers were required to investigate and submit reports to coroners on 279 fatalities in England and Wales during the 2001–02 reporting period, and a further 15 cases were notified to the procurator fiscal in Scotland. The report continues: 
''Of all Force cases, 4 involved the deaths of members of rail staff. A total of 77 verdicts of suicide were recorded in England and Wales.''
 I listened to what the hon. Member for Bath said but, as the British Transport police statistics suggest, the railways have become suicide traps, which is deeply alarming. 
 I do not expect the Under-Secretary to treat my request as a priority, but I would be interested to see the figures for the Crown Prosecution Service so that I may compare it with the Procurator Fiscal service in Scotland. The Under-Secretary—an avid reader—helpfully told us in his winding-up remarks that reading the Order Paper was the best way to find out which documents had been laid before the House. Here we are this afternoon discussing the British Transport police, and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport was pleased to announce today in a written statement that the Government have published their report on the management of accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. That will interest those of us whose constituencies have congested railway lines and several road bridges. The Minister stated: 
''British Transport Police have agreed to collect the data about such incidents on a common basis.''—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 15WS.]
 Colleagues may like to read tomorrow's Official Report for the website reference so that we can read about it at our leisure. 
 We are discussing statistics that relate to the clause, which might have provided an ideal opportunity for the Government to table an amendment. They are not too shy to do so, as most of the amendments on the amendment paper are Government amendments. I must ask why they used the vehicle of a ministerial statement, which is laid before Parliament but cannot be discussed. The Committee would have had the chance to discuss the contents of this ministerial statement if it had been placed before the Committee as a Government amendment.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is making a valuable point about how the procedures of the House could be modernised. Has she reflected on the fact that the Committee is considering the Railways and Transport Safety Bill not only on the day of the ministerial statement—about which we have had no discussion—but on a day on which the new railway safety body, which has been much talked about in this Committee, has gone live without a murmur from the Government Front Bench?

Anne McIntosh: It may be harsh of me to say so, but the second point, although legitimate, may not be
 relevant to the clause. I pay tribute to a north-east of England newspaper, The Northern Echo, which covers county Durham but is also published in north Yorkshire. It ran a campaign on the road vehicle safety after a car collided off a railway bridge and into the path of a train. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that that was the cause of the Selby crash. I note with dismay that the Government have prepared the timetable and set the agenda, and we have no opportunity to disagree with it. They have rightly devoted five or six sittings to part 3, which relates to the British Transport police and is very important. We have a quite substantial document, which we are told people can pay £5 for through HSE Books, or download from the Government's railways website. It would have been appropriate for the Minister to table an amendment to allow us to discuss the contents of that document. I would have welcomed that opportunity. The document fits in with the collating of statistics, and we could have discussed it this morning. I imagine that it was laid at 9 or 10 o'clock this morning. We could have discussed it in the context of clauses 53 or 54 by way of a Government amendment.
 We are told that copies of the report will be sent to all local highway authorities and railway infrastructure authorities. The hon. Member for Bath and I specifically asked which parties would receive those reports. Despite the fact that it is a substantial report, produced in response to 19 separate recommendations made by the Health and Safety Commission and the Highways Agency reports published last year, we are not given an opportunity to debate it. 
 The report sets out the work of representatives of the highway authorities, railway infrastructure authorities and other organisations to identify steps that the Government consider should be taken jointly by railway infrastructure authorities and highway authorities to manage the risk of accidental incursion of road vehicles on to the railways. That raises the question of precisely how many road bridges cross railway lines. This would have been a good opportunity for us to consider the matter in a relevant context, precisely because the British Transport police have agreed to collect the data about such incidents on a common basis. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm that that will be added to PINS.

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady asked about the legal basis of the statistics. The current statistics are not required by legislation; the British Transport police produce them voluntarily. However, the British Transport police committee has powers to ask the chief constable for information. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the new statistics will, under clause 56, be in the annual report. I hope that the hon. Lady will not press me on what the acronym ''PINS'' stands for. It is the British Transport police's internal crime recording system and database, which will not be affected by the new provisions.
 Let me make one other point for clarity. The hon. Member for Bath talked about the practice of jumping between trains and what was and was not a crime. I can tell him that railway byelaws do create criminal 
 offences. The maximum penalty is at level 3; there is a fine of £1,000. Jumping or moving between carriages when a train is moving is an offence under the byelaw, so that could be subsumed into the statistics. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether we could have a debate on the statistics. The House is open to debate at any time. The Opposition are free to call a debate on the statistics on an Opposition day if they wish to do so. I would be delighted to respond to it.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Member for Bath and I have spoken about this matter on a number of occasions. The Minister, in summing up originally, explained for our benefit what it meant for a document to be laid before Parliament. I give the excuse, which will be written into the official record, that we have before us precisely the provision under which it could have been introduced by way of a formal amendment, just as the Government have sought to do with many other amendments. It is very disappointing that they did not take it upon themselves to table such an amendment, which could have been debated in the proper way. The document falls neatly within the scope of clauses 53 to 55 and particularly clause 56.

David Jamieson: If the hon. Lady thought that this matter was so important, why did Opposition not table an amendment? It is not only the Government who can table amendments.

Anne McIntosh: That is an interesting concept. How am I supposed to table an amendment on information to which I am not privy and which was not placed in the Library until 9.30 this morning? I find that point fairly infantile.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 - Inquiry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister explain the present legal basis of an inquiry into the British Transport police and whether existing legislation applies to the national police force? What is the nature of an inquiry? We have already debated circumstances surrounding the statistical bulletin. Is a complaint against an individual police constable or an action by the British Transport police covered? Is a fatal accident inquiry relevant? Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State appoint a person to conduct such an inquiry, and who might be appointed?
 Under subsection (3), a person appointed 
''may summon a person to attend at a specified time and place—
(a) to give evidence
(b) to produce a document.''
 I am sure that the Minister would want to put our minds at rest on that. The issues overlap with debates on part 1, under which the rail accident investigation branch was established. I hope that, in the event of an accident, no potential conflict of interest in the taking 
 and supplying of evidence will arise. That raises the question of what sort of inquiry would be set up. If existing legislation already provides for that, what circumstances apply? Will the Minister assure us that no conflict of interest will arise in investigations undertaken by the railway accident investigation branch? 
 Curiously, the Secretary of State is allowed to receive a report of an inquiry insofar as he believes that it is in the public interest to publish a summary. Does that cover an inquiry into terrorist activity or a perceived public threat? Under what circumstances would such an inquiry take place in public and in private? 
 I understand that separate provisions apply to Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that in Scotland the Secretary of State is allowed to cite a person to attend—a legal nicety that you, Mr. Hood, and I understand, as the legal language is slightly different north of the border? 
 One response to the original Government consultation referred to the appointment of a treasurer and an independent financial adviser. Could an inquiry authorised under clause 57 cover financial investigations? Have the Government thought about appointing a treasurer or independent financial adviser, or can the clause be used in that regard?

John Spellar: Clauses 57 and 58 replicate section 34 of the Police Act 1997. They allow the Secretary of State to order an inquiry into a matter connected with the British Transport police. It is for the Secretary of State to determine in the circumstances of the time whether the inquiry should be held in public or in private. No statutory provisions currently exist for an inquiry into the British Transport police, and clauses 57 and 58 will remedy that. Inquiries would be on policing matters, including serious crime or crowd control at stations or other matters that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
 The rail accident investigation branch would conduct railway accident investigations. It is clear that the person appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the inquiry should be able to summon witnesses to give evidence in person, and clause 58 will detail how that will be effected. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to publish a summary of the report of an inquiry if he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. 
 Those comments cover the broader areas covered by the hon. Lady, save that there are provisions for a treasurer, which is foreseen by paragraph 11(a) of schedule 4.

John Randall: Would the inquiries include internal inquiries into police activities and complaints?

John Spellar: That would depend on the nature of the complaint and whether there were other provisions in the procedure. The Bill leaves it open to both the authority and the chief constable to deal with their own matters, but if there are questions, the clause provides that the Secretary of State can satisfy his,
 public or parliamentary opinion that one is necessary. It will facilitate an inquiry and provide a mechanism that does not currently exist for the British Transport police. As I have had to reiterate many times, the clause brings British Transport police in line with the Home Office police forces. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for drawing the Committee's attention to paragraph 11(a) of schedule 4, which refer to a treasurer. We should have time to consider that part of the Bill.
 I understood the Minister's points, but I have some remaining questions. I understand that such an inquiry would not cover any financial irregularity. Am I right in thinking that if financial irregularity were alleged on the part of the British Transport police authority, the Government would not use the mechanism in clause 57 to investigate it? On crowd control, when London gets back to normal next week after the two half-term weeks, we might need an inquiry into crowd control at underground stations following the introduction of the congestion charge. 
 I thank the Minister for referring to the existing provision about inquiries in section 34 of the Police Act 1997. How many times has that provision been used in the past six years, and what were the circumstances of those inquiries?

John Spellar: I shall have to write to the hon. Lady on her last question.
 To avoid doubt, I should clarify the position of individual officers as opposed to that of a more general inquiry. The British Transport police currently have a voluntary agreement with the Police Complaints Authority for complaints to be handled in the same way as they are for Home Office police officers. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, the British Transport police will be subject to the new Independent Police Complaints Commission that was established by that Act. Therefore the BTP are required to enter an agreement with the new commission about the handling of complaints against BTP officers. As I pointed out earlier the case for an inquiry covers more general issues that would rightly be determined by the Secretary of State. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Inquiry: supplemental

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister linked clauses 57 and 58. I note with interest that the clause transfers corresponding provisions from section 34 of the Police Act 1997. A fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale presumably reflects the fact of a civil offence, whereas imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks will be deemed to be for a criminal offence. In fact, however, the offence could be considered to be both at the same time. Could the
 Minister explain the thinking behind that? Subsection (7) states that a direction under subsection (6) could include provision for taxation of costs. To whom would such an application be made given that cases could be dealt with by either a civil or a criminal court? If the offence were both a civil and a criminal offence, would an application have to be made to both courts?
 The Secretary of State is given discretionary power to direct the authority to pay all or part of the costs incurred by a person in connection with an inquiry under clause 57. That is rather curious. Does that accept that the inquiry should not have been brought in the first place and that the person who is being inquired into could have those legitimate costs falling on to them? Subsection (2) reads: 
''A person appointed under section 57 may not require the production of a document relating to the title of land which is not the property of the Authority.''
 How, if the document relating to the title of land is not produced, do the Government intend to prove to whom it belongs? Obviously this will have occurred under the provisions of the 1997 Act? These provisions could have serious consequences in terms of both civil and criminal offences.

John Spellar: The hon. Lady rightly says that the level 3 fines and imprisonment imply fairly strong sanctions that are obviously aimed at getting people to attend in order to provide evidence. That does not necessarily apply only to the person being inquired into. The person could be a witness who is required to attend and therefore has to incur personal costs. It would not apply only to someone into whom there might be an inquiry because there might be a generic inquiry in which the person was an involved party. That mirrors section 34 of the Police Act 1997.
 Subsection (3) states: 
''A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to comply with a summons . . . to co-operate with an inquiry''.
 That entails quite a substantial fine, which I understand is a criminal fine and a term of imprisonment that is slightly longer than that in the 1996 Act. It has been altered to allow for changes in the Criminal Justice Bill. 
 The power of inquiry relates to how the force is run, so it is inappropriate for an inquiry to get hold of any title documents for land—in a private house, for example. Only land belonging to the authority is relevant, which I hope clarifies the issue.

Anne McIntosh: That was helpful. The Minister seems highly knowledgeable about acronyms relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but when we try to hold him to account on the wording of an updated provision, he is rather less forthcoming. If I understood him correctly, the Minister views the provisions as dealing with serious offences and he said that imprisonment is for a longer term than under the 1997 Act. He also referred to parallels with the Criminal Justice Bill. I would have liked to hear why the offence is deemed to be more serious: what has happened between 1997 and today to make it more serious and why has the penalty been increased? Will the Minister satisfy me about taxation? Will the
 auditor of the court be involved in the taxation of costs?

John Spellar: The reason why the maximum was changed from six months to 51 weeks is that it was part of a detailed package of measures by which sentences for summary offences—currently set at the maximum penalty of six months—were automatically increased to 51 weeks. The change was made for the sake of consistency and harmonisation between different legislation. On taxation, I shall have to revert to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: I cannot delay proceedings, but I do take an interest in taxation matters. As the Minister has graphically revealed this afternoon, someone, having been summoned and with no earthly reason not to attend, could be put to considerable expense. I hope that by tomorrow the Minister will be able to supply me the information in writing. It is regrettable that, in view of the generous time allotted by the Government to consider the provisions, they are not as well prepared as they should be.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Public consultation

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 59, page 24, line 7, after 'Executive', insert— 
 '( ) employees in railway services and trade unions related to railway services'.
 I am not sure whether Ministers were well prepared for debating the earlier clause, but I am sure that they will be well prepared for this amendment. All I expect at this stage is an ''all right then'' response. If I do not receive that, I still hope for some good news in a short time. For the sake of brevity—

John Spellar: Can I help the hon. Gentleman by saying ''all right then'', saving him from having to make any further contribution?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Don Foster: In the spirit of wanting to make progress and given the clear assurance of the Minister that he will further consider the lacuna identified in the amendment—the failure to take account of employers and trade unions in the consultation list—I am delighted to accept his ''all right then'', and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The clause is welcome and we wholeheartedly applaud it. Subsection (1) provides a list. Is it indicative or fully comprehensive? As I mentioned earlier, in some circumstances, parish councils would have an interest in obtaining information about the policing of the railways. In the initial consultation the Passenger Transport Executive gave the Government the benefit of its
 views, which is why I want to know the extent to which the list is all embracing.
 The Rail Passengers Council would be the most appropriate body for the consultation of passengers, but the Consumers Association and its laudable publication Which? often examines transportation by rail and other modes of transport. To what extent are the Government minded to consult it? Scottish Ministers are also mentioned in the list, so to what extent will the Government consult them and other Scottish organisations? Welsh communications could also be mentioned. 
 The Under-Secretary missed the point when I spoke about victims as a worthy inclusion in the statistics column. He said that statistics on victims appeared in the PINS and statistical bulletin, but I also mentioned gender, age, ethnicity and ability. On that last factor, I refer again to the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which welcomed clause 59 on reviewing opinions about the policing of the railways. In his response, will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State intends to table an amendment to the clause? Apparently not, but the Committee is still young and further sittings lie ahead. 
 Will the Government propose an amendment to require consultation with disabled passengers and their representatives so that their views can be taken into account in the planning process? Will future consultation documents be produced in large print, tape and Braille and be made available on an accessible web site to allow blind and partially sighted people to participate? Those questions are highly pertinent for the less able and the less mobile, as well as for the partially sighted and the blind. Hard-of-hearing passengers might also like to be consulted. Does the Minister expect consultation by the British Transport police to take into account the views and real concerns of disabled passengers? 
 By the same token and in view of the volume of statistics on offenders being apprehended through the good services of the British Transport police, would the Minister see fit to consider that such consultations should have regard to the interests of victims? Perhaps the consultation would be opportune in that regard. It would also be helpful for the victims to feel that they were being consulted on what for them are extremely serious issues. 
 The list of bodies to which the Bill refers is not exhaustive or comprehensive, so presumably the Government will want to consult the other bodies to which I have referred. Will the Minister look favourably on consulting, for example, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and those passengers, both less able and able-bodied, who have been victims in the past? 
 Obviously, paragraph (m) is the cover-all provision. It refers to 
''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''
 I revert to the point about parish councils. I am thinking particularly of parish councils that represent areas such as Cattal, which I mentioned this morning. Cattal station is a commuter station on a very busy 
 line between Harrogate and York. It serves the golden triangle, in that it serves Harrogate and York, and provides access to Leeds. Parish councils that represent areas in which a busy line and station are located should be considered. 
 It goes without saying that one would expect the chief constable to be consulted. However, I am slightly concerned that 
''Before making or reviewing arrangements under this section the Authority shall . . . have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.''
 Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what specific guidance has been laid down and how it is brought to the attention of the authority and those who would wish to be consulted? It is extremely important that they all know what they are doing. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the consultation will be conducted in the most open and transparent way possible.

Don Foster: Having persuaded the Minister to extend the clause by adding the words that I have proposed, or the alternative that he will now propose to cover the same point, I now ask him whether he would be prepared to make up for that addition by allowing a small deletion. I study these matters with some interest. Will he explain why subsection (4)(c) is in the clause?
 The Committee will be aware that two requirements are placed on the authority: 
''The Authority shall make, and review from time to time, arrangements to obtain the opinions''
 of various people, and 
''shall make, and review from time to time, arrangements to invite the co-operation of the persons listed''.
 However, we are then told under subsection (4)(c) that 
''The Secretary of State may . . . require the Authority to review arrangements under this section.''
 As the authority has no choice—it has to conduct reviews from time to time—why is there the addition that the Secretary of State ''may'' ask them to do so? He insists that they do that earlier in the clause. I am slightly confused.

John Spellar: The hon. Member for Vale of York said that the list of organisations identified was not exhaustive or comprehensive. However, that is precisely why we have paragraph (m), which enables the authority to take into account
''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''
 The hon. Member for Bath is right that the authority shall make, and review from time to time, the arrangements. However, just as a backstop, the Secretary of State can intervene if it is thought that those arrangements are not working satisfactorily. We certainly hope that they will work satisfactorily, which is why we do not want to be over-prescriptive. It could be argued that the list is quite lengthy. However, it could be extended much further. That is precisely why we have the enabling power for the authority under 
 paragraph (m). It is for the authority to review the arrangements to ensure that there is the widest and most effective consultation possible with all those who might have an appropriate interest in the matter.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister knows that he is waffling. Under subsection (4)(a) and (b), the Secretary of State has the power to get involved in the way in which the review is carried out. There is no need to add anything to that provision, because the authority has no choice but to review from time to time. As I said earlier, that is already covered. The provision is tautological and totally unnecessary. I do not care two figs whether there is a backstop. I had hoped that the Minister might for once agree that it was unnecessary, but if he thinks otherwise, so be it.

John Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that taking a belt and braces approach is not unprecedented in legislation.

Anne McIntosh: It is all very well to have belt and braces, but the hon. Member for Bath pressed the right button when he said that the Minister was slightly waffling.

Don Foster: I did not say he was ''slightly waffling'' but that he was waffling.

Anne McIntosh: I find it extraordinary that although we are having a full debate, the Government seem totally unprepared to answer the pertinent questions raised by me and the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that the Royal Institute of the Blind will take a disappointing view of the fact that the Minister has not responded or said whether victims will be included in the consultation. He certainly did not deal with my specific request about whether parish councils would be included.
 As for the Minister blathering on about Scottish Ministers and Members of the National Assembly for Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State would want the authority to consult other bodies in Scotland and Wales. It would have been interesting to hear which bodies they might be. I specifically asked about the relevant provisions of the Act. Rather than accuse the Minister of waffling, I would say that he is a little under-prepared for today's debate.

John Spellar: I made it clear to the hon. Lady that, under paragraph (g), the opinions would be sought of
''organisations representing local authorities in England''.
 That therefore enables all local authorities to be engaged in discussions with regard to victims. The authority may well be looking at a post-incident response in order to evaluate the experience of victims and to find out what lessons could be learned that hade a more general application, rather than specific applications. 
 The clause allows authorities to review from time to time their arrangements for obtaining people's opinions about the policing of the railways. That is precisely why it lays that duty on the authorities. They can look at their mechanisms for obtaining such views from a range of specified organisations; but, in the hon. Lady's own words, it is by no means an exhaustive or comprehensive list. Paragraph (m) will enable those authorities to do that. If that mechanism 
 is found not to be effective in obtaining the widest possible range of necessary and appropriate views, the clause provides for the Secretary of State to intervene. It seems right to put that level of responsibility on the authority, but as always when setting up such bodies, we also provide a fall-back position. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Inspection

Amendments made: No. 39, in 
clause 60, page 25, line 1, after 'Scotland', insert— 
 '(a)'.
 No. 40, in 
clause 60, page 25, line 4, at end insert 
 ', and 
 (b) where an inspection under this section is carried out by inspectors so appointed the references to the Secretary of State in subsection (7) shall be treated as references to the Scottish Ministers.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We now move on to the clauses that deal with inspection. [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. To recap, the Committee has voted on amendments Nos. 39 and 40. We will now debate whether clause 60, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Hood.
 I want to turn the Committee's attention back to the original consultation on these clauses. My understanding is that there is wide support, from the British Transport police, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers and its equivalent in Scotland, for regular statutory inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary of the British Transport police. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland commented that it would need to be involved in inspection arrangements for Scotland, because of the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether that has been agreed. I presume that that subsection (8) is relevant to that. 
 I think that the Minister will confirm that the Government are minded to establish regular inspections, perhaps no more often than every three years. The Bill states only that 
''Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary shall inspect the Police Force from time to time.''
 My understanding, which the Minister may want to confirm, is that inspections tend to be at three-yearly intervals. The Transport Salaried Staffs Association, as the Minister will recall, requested annual, rather than three-yearly, inspections. I wonder how the Government responded to that. It is not clear from the Bill what intervals will be used. In their official 
 response, the Government said that they were not minded to consider a different frequency for inspections from that considered appropriate for Home Office police forces. 
 I understand that the Government also intend that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland should have a duty, under the general umbrella of statutory provision, to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland. I presume that subsection (8) is the relevant provision, but would be grateful for clarification. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm that it is intended that only the Secretary of State would receive and publish the subsequent reports or have the power to instruct Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland in particular circumstances. 
 The Bill does not say so, but the Government, in their response to the original consultation, said that any directions to the British Transport police after an adverse report following an inspection would also be a matter for the Secretary of State. I presume that the Under-Secretary will confirm that. 
 I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure the Committee that inspections will take place at regular intervals. It is a good opportunity for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to see that everything is shipshape. Will the inspectors' report to the Secretary of State be a public or an internal document? Will any reports will be made to the House, or will it be possible for right hon. and hon. Members to track the results of the inspections? 
 What is the current situation under the Police Act 1996? Section 55 relates to any necessary modifications and reports of an inspection. It would be helpful to know not only that there are inspections, but that the inspections and reports undertaken by the inspectorate will be transparent and open, and that right hon. and hon. Members will have access to them. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to respond to those points, and to concerns raised during the formal consultations about how the Government sought to address those issues when drafting the clause. Of particular concern is the frequency of inspections. Does ''from time to time'' mean every year or, as is currently the case, every three years? Will the Under-Secretary also say how the position in Scotland has been resolved?

David Jamieson: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Lady's questions. Under the Police Act 1996, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary inspects and reports to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of all Home Office police forces. The British Transport police have not fallen under the statutory remit of the inspectorate in the past. Nevertheless, at the invitation of the British Transport police committee, the inspectorate has undertaken detailed assessments of the operational performance and organisation of the British Transport police every three years, applying the same standards that it applies for the Home Office police forces.
 It is time to regularise the arrangement. The clause places a statutory duty on the inspectorate to inspect 
 the British Transport police. It will have to report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of the British Transport police regularly and at the request of the Secretary of State, who will publish a report each time he receives one. I believe that the hon. Lady asked that question in her anxiety to get through her contribution. It is, of course, in subsection (5). 
 Unlike the inspectorate of the Home Office police forces, which is funded centrally, the British Transport police authority will meet the full costs of inspections of the British Transport police. That is in line with other non-Home Office police forces such as the Ministry of Defence police force, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and the Isle of Man police force. The inspectorate in England and Wales will continue to be responsible for inspections of the British Transport police as a whole. 
 The hon. Lady also asked about the position in Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland will be given the statutory duty to inspect the transport police and to report to the Secretary of State in so far as the British Transport police operate in Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary in Scotland are, of course, the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. The British Transport police, however, are a national police force under the control of the Secretary of State for Transport. Since Scottish Ministers do not have control over the British Transport police in Scotland, there is no action that they could take on receipt of a report from HMIC Scotland. In practice, the Secretary of State will send copies of all the HMIC Scotland reports on the British Transport police in Scotland to the relevant Scottish Minister for the purposes of information.

John Randall: I am intrigued by the idea that non-Home Office police forces pay for their own inspections. Can the Under-Secretary tell me how much one of the regular inspections might cost?

David Jamieson: The inspections cost in the region of £50,000.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York wanted confirmation of the frequency of inspections of the British Transport police. The primary inspection of the British Transport police will take place every three years, in line with those of the Home Office forces. She then asked what action would be taken on those inspection reports, but we will discuss that under clauses 61 to 63.

Anne McIntosh: I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion. The Under-Secretary commented that the inspection costs would be incurred by the British Transport police, but they are funded by the industry, so—in view of the information that he provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge—one would not want there to be too many inspections at such a cost. He has, however, put my mind at rest as to the fact that those inspections would be in keeping with the inspections that take place in other local police forces.
 I think that I have understood what the Under-Secretary said about the Scottish thing, but that takes us back to the dichotomy whereby, under the Scotland Act 1998, the police powers are reserved whereas the transport powers are devolved. That issue will tease us throughout our consideration of the Bill. However, we do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on subsequent clauses. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Action after adverse inspection report

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: If a report from an inspection concluded that a police force was inefficient or ineffective, that would be a serious matter. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the provisions transpose the statutory responsibilities that existed under the Police Act 1996 and put them on the same basis for the British Transport police?
 Subsection (2) states that the sections apply 
''where a report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary states that the Police Force is likely, unless remedial measures are taken, to become inefficient or ineffective.''
 Could the Under-Secretary give us a benchmark of what was deemed, in previous inspection reports, to constitute inefficient or ineffective activity? Does that benchmark relate to the police's own reports and railways policy plans, to performance targets set by the Secretary of State, to their three-year strategy plans, or are there other, underlying measures that would indicate that the police force is in danger of becoming inefficient or ineffective? It would be helpful for the Committee to be given some explanatory guidance as to what the Government have in mind in that regard. Presumably, he will also confirm that the same benchmark for inefficiency or ineffectiveness would be used in England and Wales, and in Scotland. 
 This is a wide-ranging clause, with enormous implications for the police force if such a negative report were to be drafted, so it would help the Committee to know the background and the specific benchmarks that will be used to deem that the force is inefficient or ineffective.

David Jamieson: Clause 61 applies clauses 62 and 63 in the case of an adverse report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the British Transport police. The clauses provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction that require the British Transport police authority to submit to him a plan of action to be taken to remedy the deficiency identified in the report. The hon. Lady asked about the transposition, and we are back to question A, answer B again. The clauses are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996.
 It would be best for the hon. Lady to see the previous reports and their comments. She should trawl 
 through previous reports on the British Transport police, which may give her an idea of the relevant issues in determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Ultimately, those are matters for the inspector to report on, and within those reports, she will see what benchmarking, if any, was used. 
 Under other clauses, the Secretary of State may ask for other information from time to time. Her Majesty's inspectorate could report on the strategy, organisational relationships, crime and absence management and best value, which we talked about this morning. The hon. Lady also mentioned issues of race and diversity, which could be included, as could information technology, complaints and disciplinary issues.

John Randall: When the Under-Secretary mentioned investigating relationships, what did he mean by that?

David Jamieson: I meant relationships with other organisations. I hope that we are not back to bigamy again, as we covered that this morning. I will not enlarge on that, but instead press on.
 The inspectorate will also make recommendations on good practice and areas in which the force could improve. The reporting will be done in the same way in England, Wales and Scotland, notwithstanding that a separate organisation will carry it out in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh: I could go away and spend all day tomorrow in the Library, but the question is where the reports are published. We have already had the benefit of a reference this morning to the statistical bulletin and finding out that it took two and a half hours from 11.30 to 2 pm to get it. Will the Under-Secretary tell me where in the parliamentary estate I will find the reports of the local police forces and the previous reports of the British Transport police? That will enable me to do the little bit of research that he suggested, which I will be happy to do if he points me in the right direction.
 However, even then, how will the reports on the local police forces under the remit of the Home Office help me to understand how the British Transport police force, which is tasked with transport policing, particularly on the railways and in and around stations, will be deemed to be inefficient or ineffective? That is what I was trying to tease out from the Under-Secretary, although I must have been doing it inefficiently and ineffectively. We want to know how the inspection report will affect the specific policing duties of the British Transport police force and how it can deem the force to be inefficient, ineffective and failing in its duties? He has failed to enlighten us on that so far, but if he will point me in the right direction I can go away and study a number of reports tomorrow. That would be a good use of my time. I hope that he is able to tell me where to find them.

David Jamieson: If I can help the hon. Lady use her time, I will. The House authorities do have the reports, I believe, in the Library. If she has complaints about the House authorities she should take them up through the appropriate channels. Of course, it would be totally improper for the Government to have any role in the organisation of information that
 comes in and out of the House of Commons Library. We provide the information, but how it is provided to hon. Members is entirely a matter for the House authorities. If she smiles at me really nicely, my Department might let her borrow one of the reports. We might even photocopy one so that she can spend happy evenings—now that we finish so much earlier—thumbing through them and acquainting herself with them.
 The hon. Lady asked about efficiency and effectiveness. I thought that that was all fairly clear—silly old me. The inspectorate could report, for example, on whether the strategy was being carried out effectively and efficiently. Best value is a classic case for evaluation of efficiency, and information technology is another area that could be commented on. One does not need much imagination to see how an inspectorate could comment on matters such as the efficient use of information technology. I am not an expert on inspections, but I am sure that most of us who have read reports of various sorts can imagine what will be in these reports. [Interruption.] I am not sure that we need to go into that level of detail in this afternoon's debate. I say again to the hon. Lady that if she looks at some previous reports and sees how such things have been reported, she will probably be better informed on the matter. If she needs further information, we will endeavour to assist her. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Remedial direction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that the Under-Secretary and his Department will notice how sweetly I am smiling at him, so that I might be allowed to take home one of the reports for reading after I have partied later tonight.
 I want to make one or two probing remarks about the clause. The Minister will probably tell me again that the clause confers the same statutory duty on the British Transport police as was in the earlier Police Acts. Clearly, it again gives a discretionary power of direction to the Secretary of State. Again, I think that we are talking about questions B and C. Copies of the direction and a report about it will be laid before Parliament, which is helpful. 
 I shall go away and do my homework overnight to ensure that I have read previous reports in relation to other remedial directions. Will the Under-Secretary share with us what time frame is envisaged for the remedial direction and for the action plan under clause 63? In the event of an adverse inspection report showing that the police force at the time is inefficient or ineffective, what time scale will the police authority be given to take the required remedial action? Presumably, it will be the Secretary of State himself—taking it from the Department—who monitors whether the remedial direction is followed to the letter. It would help the Committee to know what time frame is involved and how long the 
 authority will be given to make itself more effective and efficient, in the worst-case scenario.

John Randall: Presumably, this will be the first occasion on which the Secretary of State for Transport deals with the police force and directs the authority to take specified measures. We are of course blessed in the Secretary of State, his Ministers and his Department, but that may not always be the case. What expertise do they have in dealing with the police force? Would they take advice from, say, the Home Office?

Don Foster: It might help the Committee if the Under-Secretary, in addition to giving answer B to the questions that seem to be so frequently asked, reminded us of the wording at the front of the Bill. Under the heading ''Explanatory Notes'', we see:
''Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Transport, are published separately as Bill 40-EN.''
 He might from time to time, instead of saying, ''Answer B,'' refer us to the information that is provided. The excellent explanatory notes prepared by his Department answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Vale of York has asked. Like her, I have a high regard for its officials, Ministers and Secretary of State.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. Those explanatory notes provide many of my answers to the hon. Lady. I am worried that she will start reading them before I give the answers and will be mouthing them across the Committee as I give them to her.
 Clauses 62 and 63 provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report and are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996. Clause 62 enables the Secretary of State to direct the authority to take specified actions to remedy any force deficiencies. Before making such a direction, the Secretary of State must give the authority and the chief constable the opportunity to make representations. He must also give the authority the opportunity to propose actions that would make his direction unnecessary. If the Secretary of State should issue such a direction, he shall lay a copy before Parliament, together with a report about it. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the time scale of such action. That would largely depend on the type of action being required of the authority. I think that she will understand the term ''reasonable''. The authority would be expected to act in reasonable time in these circumstances. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked whether the Department had sufficient expertise. I assure him that it has a wealth of expertise, but we are talking about the expertise to consider the report. It is not necessary to have knowledge of inspecting the police force, because that is done not by the Department but by the inspectorate. However, the Department will have the knowledge and experience of people who will be able to consider the reports and then suggest the action to be taken. The report itself may contain recommendations and suggestions for remedial 
 action. It would then be for the Secretary of State to put together the relevant documentation to ensure that they appear in the plan.

John Randall: In no way was I casting aspersions on the Department. I simply wondered whether there would be any provision for it to have any assistance or share knowledge from the Home Office.

David Jamieson: That is almost inevitable. Departments share a great deal of knowledge and expertise with one another. We have joint appointments over certain matters, such as road traffic safety. Therefore, yes, that would be perfectly possible.
 To flesh out the question of the time required for the action plan, the time frame would generally be four to 12 weeks, depending on the type of action required. We shall come to that on the next clause.

Anne McIntosh: As the hon. Member for Bath would expect, I am an avid reader of the explanatory notes. They are extensive on the early clauses. The Ministers are in great difficulty this afternoon because the Opposition have noticed that the explanatory notes are very brief. The Library notes do not offer any greater assistance. Bearing in mind that the Government have structured the context of the debate and the amount of time that we spend on each clause—the hon. Member for Bath has also focused on this—they have not been quite as prepared over the past day and a half as they were for the earlier part of our proceedings. I simply pass that on in good humour. It is good to see that we are all smiling.
 It is not adequate for the Under-Secretary to tell me that the British Transport police authority will be given a reasonable length of time to comply with the direction and the report about it. As he and I both know, what is reasonable to one man or woman can be deeply unreasonable to another. I should have thought that in the Bill or in slightly more extensive explanatory notes than the Minister's Department was prepared to provide we could have been given an indication of what a reasonable time would be. I fear that the onus will come back to the British Transport police authority if ever it is found to be in breach of clauses 61 and 62, and that some bright spark will find evidence that it has not taken remedial action within a reasonable time. 
 I should have thought that three months would be a reasonable time. The Department may feel that it does not give the British Transport police authority sufficient time. Not only are the explanatory notes defective, the Bill is defective in not setting out what a specific time period would be. The consequences of an adverse inspection report and a remedial direction from the Secretary of State could be serious. The Government should have explained what a reasonable time would be. Perhaps three months is something that we could work towards.

David Jamieson: Briefly, I would not wish to accuse the hon. Lady of being ill prepared, but if she looks at clause 63(3) she will see that an action plan would be required within four to 12 weeks. We would expect to
 see the timing for any remedial direction in that plan and we would expect it to be within a reasonable time. That again would depend on the seriousness of the action that needed to be taken. In some cases, it might be judged reasonable that something should be dealt with within a week. Other matters might need to be dealt with over a much longer period. For example, recruitment issues could take perhaps a year or so to materialise but on other issues immediate action might be more appropriate. The period for the action would be appropriate to its seriousness.

John Randall: Perhaps I am losing the drift of this. Does the remedial direction under the clause precede an action plan, are they separate, or does the action plan follow the remedial direction?

David Jamieson: The remedial direction would cover, and ask for, the action plan, which is the authority's indication of how it will deal with any criticisms made of it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Action plan

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: It is good to see that we have joined-up government, and that the Department rapidly latched on to the fact that there should be a four to 12-week period, as the Under-Secretary rightly said. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made the pertinent point that it would be better for the clause on the action plan to come between clauses 61 and 62. What is the connection between the action plan provision, the remedial direction under clause 62, the railways policing plan under clause 49, and the Secretary of State's own performance targets? As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge rightly said, this will be the first time that the Secretary of State for Transport will be asked to set performance targets for a police force.
 We are not given much assistance but one hates to be critical of such a hard-working Department. It is worth noting that it has rightly been made a Department for Transport in its own right, which we welcome. However, all we are told is that 
''Clauses 61 . . . 62 . . . 63 . . . and 64 . . . provide the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report.''
 The explanatory notes continue: 
''The clauses, modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996, enable the Secretary of State to direct the Authority to take specified actions or ask it to produce an action plan to remedy any Force deficiencies. The same procedures, including consulting with the Authority and Chief Constable, will apply to the Secretary of State regarding the BTP in the same way as they apply to Home Office police forces.''
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, this is the first time that the Secretary of State for Transport will be asked to set performance targets for a police force, and, regrettably, there may be teething problems. What are the staffing arrangements for the Department? Are there any staffing 
 implications, or will the same members of staff be used? Are there dedicated staff for this? 
 Where the clause applies as a result of a report under clause 61, the Secretary of State has the discretionary power to 
''require the Authority to submit to him a plan of action to be taken''.
 It is worth noting that the clause refers to the same performance targets that I presume are set out in clause 50. How do the Secretary of State's powers under the clause relate to clause 50? 
 I accept that most of us—we are all reasonable people—will deem a period of between four and 12 weeks, within which the plan must be submitted, to be reasonable. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary can envisage situations in which particular leeway could be given so that the 12-week period could slip to four or six months, should circumstances permit. It is only guidance: it is not comprehensive. It is fair that the Secretary of State, in exercising the discretion before giving a direction, should notify the authority and the chief constable. Obviously, that would allow the chief constable and the authority to make representations. I hope that the direction would be given in a time frame of more than one or two weeks to allow the chief constable and the authority to make representations. 
 Clause 63(6) could be pre-empted. I draw attention to the relationship of the clause with the earlier clauses. I wonder how the reasonably practicable period after receiving the direction, during which the authority shall require the chief constable to submit a draft plan of action, fits in with the draft plan of action produced as part of the railways policing plan in conjunction with the authority. It is interesting that the Department does not seem to have given much thought to that. If the Minister is taking all his answers from the explanatory notes, he is going to be in some difficulty. They certainly are not of much assistance to us in what is a very important, far-reaching and extensive clause.

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Lady that when I said that I was taking all my information from the explanatory notes, I was actually joking. The information I had came from tapping the deep vein of knowledge that I have, thanks to the backing of my Department.
 Clause 63 provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction following an adverse HMIC report, which are modelled on similar provisions in the Police Act 1996. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to require the authority to produce an action plan setting out what will be done to correct any deficiency identified in the inspection. The plan will need to provide a timetable for action including performance targets—I know that the hon. Lady does not like targets—proposals for assessing whether the actions identified have been completed, and a means for reporting progress on implementation to the Secretary of State. 
 In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady criticised the way that clauses 60 to 63 have been set out. Having looked at the Bill again, I cannot agree with her at all. 
 The order seems perfectly logical to me. Clause 60 sets out inspection; clause 61 details action; clause 62 is a logical progression to remedial action to be taken; and clause 63 is the actual action plan. One could juggle those in a few different directions and permutate the order, but I do not think that one would come up with anything more logical than what is in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made a constructive comment—relatively helpful for a reasonable man. When I said clause 63 could be placed between clauses 61 and 62 it was not a flippant remark. I think that it does fit in there.
 In a similarly helpful way, I wonder if I could tease the Minister a little more and ask him to explain—with the marvellous army of helpers at his disposal—how the performance targets that he is referring to differ from the performance targets in clause 50. That is what I meant by asking what the relevance was of having performance targets in each phase. How does clause 63 fit in with clause 50 and earlier clauses?

David Jamieson: I was about to move straight on to that point. The hon. Lady asked whether we had sufficient staff. The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the issue earlier. Any staff needed for the assessment of the action plan would be taken from existing resources in our railways division, which has an excellent team of people who are well equipped to be deal with such matters and report on them in an appropriate way to Ministers.
 The hon. Lady asked about the relationship between clauses 63 and 50. It is fairly simple. She will be surprised to learn that the provisions correspond to provisions in the Police Act 1996. I am sure that that comes as a total surprise to the whole of the Committee. Surely, the action plan could refer to the performance targets and indicate of how they would be met. I thought that the relationship between the two clauses was clearly obvious to all of us. With that, I hope that we can now move on.

Anne McIntosh: It is so clearly obvious that I am missing it. I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily, but the point that I made about subsection (6) is most appropriate. Perhaps the problem could be pre-empted by relying more on the earlier clauses than the Government seem minded to do. I believe that the Under-Secretary is trying to confirm, although he did not spell it out, that subsection (3) would not be read so literally as to exclude a longer period of, say, four to six months in extreme circumstances. I suggested that three months is a reasonable period. Would he be so good as to confirm that the measure is indicative only, and that in extreme circumstances there would be some flexibility in the interpretation of it?
 I was not casting any aspersions on the Under-Secretary's excellent staff, with whom we hope to work for several years, perhaps from a different side of the Committee at some very near future date. I do not doubt the ability of his staff to read the reports. However, if I correctly understood his answer to my 
 hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, it will be the first time that they will read the reports in that particular way. Rather than taking them away from duties, new staff should be allocated with responsibilities for specific railway police duties.

David Jamieson: Just for clarity, I believe that the hon. Lady was leading me astray somewhat. For completeness, let me discuss the relationship between the performance targets in clause 50 and those in 63. The action plan will be for new targets, which do not relate to the targets in clause 50. The latter relate to the annual railways policing plan, not to any remedial action after a report. I may have suggested otherwise in my earlier remarks. I did not intend to do that, but the hon. Lady was leading me on. I got somewhat excited.
 There is no flexibility on the time in which the plans must be produced—the four to 12 weeks. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Lady asked how we would assess the matter. I return to the idea that the timing must be reasonable and appropriate to the action that needs to be taken. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 - Senior appointment: delegation of function

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Hood, that I do not have extensive comments to make on this clause. However, the Minister did not reply satisfactorily to my earlier remarks, so I shall have one more go, and this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. Will he confirm that the clause gives Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland the statutory duty to inspect the British Transport police in Scotland in so far as they operate under the general umbrella of statutory inspections by that inspectorate of the British Transport police?

David Jamieson: I have answered that question.

Anne McIntosh: If the Minister has given an answer, it was not sufficiently clear to me. Presumably the clause addresses the relationship between the reserved powers of policing and, for the purposes of the British Transport police, the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers in relation to the British Transport police. Will the Minister explain how the clause relates to that? It states:
''The Secretary of State may delegate to the chief inspector of constabulary appointed''
 under the existing Act. Does that already happen? Is the provision just consequential? I am sure that the answer is yes, but has the Minister answered sufficiently the concern expressed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland?

David Jamieson: Perhaps I should clarify this matter for the hon. Lady. This provision, she will be surprised to learn, replicates the provisions of section 54(3A) of
 the Police Act 1996. It allows the Secretary of State to delegate to the chief inspector of constabulary the function of approving a senior appointment. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to delegate the function of giving consent under clause 21(4) and 22(4). The chief inspector would therefore consent to a deputy or assistant chief constable temporarily filling the position of an absent chief constable. Such consent is required where the relevant officer is to fill the chief constable's post for longer than three months.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on his ability to read beautifully and with a complete lack of passion, but with the greatest respect, he has not answered the question that was put to him. It was put to the Government at the time of the consultation paper that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland felt that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements. The Minister has just rehearsed the existing law, but I want to be absolutely clear. Which legal base gives it the authority to be involved in inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland? Is this it? Has he heard specifically from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland?

John Randall: The clause refers to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, so presumably this is not necessarily the result of any devolution. There must be some difference between the police forces—apart from one being called the police and one being called the polis—that goes back some way. Perhaps my hon. Friend will question the Minister further about the difference between the two.

Anne McIntosh: As ever, my hon. Friend has put his finger on it. As I said, the Minister read beautifully. Indeed, I pause for a moment to say how well rehearsed he was, a little like the Prime Minister with the statement on Iraq. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] There was room for improvement, but it was pretty good—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has alerted the Committee to the fact, which the Minister has confirmed, that this provision gives effect, for the purposes of the British Transport police and the statutory duty that they are being given, to section 54(3A) of the Police Act 1996. It may have escaped the Under-Secretary's attention, but between the 1996 Act and today, the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. I pay tribute to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who made warm remarks about my maiden speech, which was made at the Bill's Committee stage—I have the Hansard bound copy.
 I have tracked issues of devolution, not as closely as I would have wished, but as ever my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has highlighted an important point. There has been a major development between the passing of the 1996 Act and the Bill that is before us today. At the time of consultation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland said that it would need to be involved in the inspection arrangements for the British Transport police in Scotland due to the devolved nature of policing and the role of Scottish Ministers. 
 The Government's response, which was unsatisfactory, is on page 10 of their summary of responses. It is also available on the web. In paragraph 4.20, they say: 
''The Government intends that HMIC(S)''—
 Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland— 
''should have a statutory duty to inspect the BTP(S)—
 the British Transport police in Scotland— 
''in so far as it operates in Scotland under the general umbrella of statutory HMIC inspections of the BTP. But it intends that only the Secretary of State would receive and publish the subsequent reports or have the power to instruct HMIC(S) to inspect the BTP(S) in particular circumstances. Any directions to the BTP after an adverse report would also only be a matter for the Secretary of State.''
 As beautifully as he reads, the Under-Secretary of State is evading the point. I have had help from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, but between us we cannot work out how clause 64, or any other related provision, has regard to devolution as set out in the Scotland Act, or the concerns expressed during the consultation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland.

David Jamieson: I will have another go. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her reading of paragraph 4.20 of the consultation response, and I am delighted to have been compared to the Prime Minister this afternoon. That is considerable flattery.
 Clause 64 is not about the inspections, which were dealt with under clause 60. Clause 64 is about delegating functions and approving senior appointments. As I read beautifully, I would have hoped that the point was clear, but the hon. Lady must have been carried away by the delivery rather than the substance. I thought that I said that, but I have said it again for the sake of clarity. 
Miss McIntosh rose—

Jimmy Hood: Order. Is the hon. Lady raising a point of order or intervening?

Anne McIntosh: I am attempting to intervene.

Jimmy Hood: I am sorry. I thought that it was a point of order.

David Jamieson: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Under-Secretary for allowing me to make this point on senior appointments. It relates to one that I made earlier—I think that I will be more in order now than then. An assistant chief constable in the British Transport police in England and Wales is not recognised for the purposes of promotion to the rank of chief constable in Scotland. Is that also covered by the clause? I admit to being slightly confused. The Under-Secretary said that we have stopped talking about inspections, but we are talking about the chief inspector. We have raised legitimate points.

David Jamieson: I stand by what I said earlier. We are talking about the chief inspector, but not about his inspections. For the sake of clarity, I should point out that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland has agreed to the clauses and provisions. The
 clause allows the Secretary of State to delegate either to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary or Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. The English and Welsh appointments will be to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and Scottish appointments will be to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, whose facial expressions
 never give anything away. I am not sure that the Under-Secretary has answered the specific point, but we will pursue the point at a later stage.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Thursday 27 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.